Critical Literature Review and Central Research  Question: Designing a Research Proposal

Dr Brainerd Prince

We concluded the last issue by saying that once we have used the technique of committed reading and read through the key texts of the critical bibliography we had put together on the thematic, we are ready to move to the next step: writing out a critical literature review. At the end of this process, we hope to have found the gap in the literature and our central research question.

Finding the central research question is, perhaps, the most crucial step in research. We began our story by talking about our inner angst as well as the problems and questions that we encounter in the real world. That is not what we are referring to now. Now, we are in the world of texts. We have located our research in a particular discipline and we have understood the historical discourse on our thematic. We have come across several voices, and not all voices are saying the same thing. In the midst of these voices, we are to find our own voice. For that to happen, we need to find out a gap in these voices. We need to find out something about the thematic that they have not said or have said in a limited fashion so that we can say something new. How do we find a gap that can be articulated as the central research question? We do so through the critical literature review.

I introduced three buckets in the last issue. We are in the first bucket, which is the red bucket. We had said that the red bucket entails three strategic steps: firstly, doing an annotated-committed reading of key texts on the thematic; secondly, writing out a literature review that will capture the historical discourse on the thematic; and finally, finding the gap in the literature by articulating the contemporary debate on the thematic, which is then framed as the central research question. We have addressed the first in the last issue; we will address the remaining two steps now.

What is a critical literature review [CLR]? A literature review is a written document that presents a logically argued case founded on a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge about a topic of study. CLR is conducted in order to set a conceptual and theoretical framework for your research work. The purpose is manifold: (1) To demonstrate that you have a clear understanding of the depth and width of your thematic so that you are familiar with the existing literature in your area of investigation; (2) To identify gaps in literature so as to provide a rationale for your current study. The gaps may be any unanswered questions, either methodological or theoretical, that may be of interest to you; (3) To take a body of existing work further by enhancing its scope, replicating it in another context, or by varying the methodology.

What is the process of doing a CLR with a view of getting a research question at the end? I will suggest four key steps.

First, we dialectically trace the historical development of the discourse on the thematic through the literature in the discipline. What I mean is that we find out when and from whom did the thematic term first appear in our chosen discipline. Then, we trace its development over the years. There will be key historical moments when the concept underwent debate and discussion, like a river when it twists and turns. We capture these twists and turns rather than the entire length of the river. We want to look at the critical progression of the thematic idea or concept in the disciplinary history of ideas. When I say dialectically, I mean when we write it down, we don’t write it purely in a descriptive manner. We look at how this historical journey is captured by multiple writers and then we weave a story by hosting a discussion between these writers. Dialectical writing goes back and forth, like a dialogue between various texts. We problematize the historical storytelling on the thematic.

The second step is to examine a current and contemporary debate on the thematic. Why a debate? Because a debate entails an unresolved question. And if we are able to trace the debate then we will be able to articulate the unanswered question on the thematic. We look at the literature on the thematic over the last 3-5 years. In certain scientific disciplines, the debate is very clear, and contemporary may mean just 3 months or even less. However, even there, the way to view the debate is multitudinous. It is not just one way or approach. By reading and doing the literature review, we master the literature on the thematic. In doing this lies our training, hence the need to do a meticulous job. Tracing a debate is to look for two different schools of thought on the same subject, for us the thematic. The schools of thought can be opposing, but need not necessarily be opposing, they could just be different. In laying out this debate and different voices, we can see how there is a lack of consensus about something within the thematic.

Thirdly, we articulate the debate as a research question.  A lack of consensus means there is an underlying question that has not yet been answered. This is how we move from a debate to a research question. It could often have the following structure: ‘If A’s understanding of the thematic is this and has these limitations, and if B’s understanding of the thematic is this with these limitations, then, I would like to raise the question – …’. If you see, this structure locates the research question within the academic discourse on the thematic. It is no longer, my question, or what I think and feel, but the question evolved out of the literature and the gap in the literature that was revealed through the active and live debate that is captured in the texts. Thus, we have found a gap in the literature. This is important because our answer to that question will earn us a seat at the table, our space on the library shelf, and a legitimate location within the community of scholars on that thematic. Finding a mature research question is central to any research project because it gives direction to the rest of the project. Now, we have an academic quest. We began with an ontological quest which has been translated into a literary or scholarly question. This is the pursuit of an academic, as opposed to the pursuit of an activist. In answering this question, we have conceptually resolved the problematic that is at the root of all the practical manifestations of the problem. If we do our job well, our academic research answer will form the bedrock of a million activisms.

Finally, in a full-length research project, the research answer has to extend to about a hundred thousand words. For that to happen, we need to be able to break down or deconstruct the central research question into constituent sub-questions. What is required here is analytical thinking. To analyze something means to break something down into its constituent parts. The word analyze derives from the Greek term analuein meaning “to unloose” or “to take apart.” Today we use the word to mean something like, “to examine methodically” to understand something complex by breaking the subject into its component parts. The reason for this evolution of the term is that when we examine something—when we try to better understand something complex—we break it down into its component parts. We break down the central research question into three or four sub-questions.

In order to have sub-research questions, we need to deconstruct the thematic. For example, if our thematic is ‘apple’ then we can deconstruct it into its constituent parts: skin, flesh, core, and seeds. Together they form the apple, and each part contributes to the whole. If our research question was about the apple, now we can ask four sub-questions on each of the four parts respectively. Thus, our main and central research question gets broken into sub-questions.

Once we have a research question that has come out of a gap in the literature and we have sub-research questions, we are ready to look for answers. In certain disciplines, there is an obsession to go and collect data on day one. One believes that once they have sufficient data, the rest of the research project will sort itself out. I say a big ‘no’ to such an approach! Unless we have done a literature review, and we have a mature research question ready in our hands, along with the sub-questions, we are not ready to go to the field to collect data. But once we have them, we are ready to look for answers.

Dr Brainerd Prince is the Associate Professor of Practice, and Director, Centre for Thinking, Language and Communication, Plaksha University.